The germs of the ideas in this book became implanted in me during my experience as a resident in clinical pathology at Boston University Medical Center. At the time, I had inklings that the test results churned out by our laboratories were more than scientific facts. As a philosophically unsophisticated young physician, however, I had no language or framework to analyze what I saw as a deep philosophical problem, a problem largely unrecognized by most physicians. The test results provided by our laboratories were accurate and of great practical importance for patient care. However, most of the physicians who relied on our test results to diagnose and treat their patients either did not have the time or interest to consider the philosophical issues inherent in diagnosis, or, like me, had inadequate means to further analyze them. It was more than ten years later that I began doctoral studies in philosophy, and I was fortunate to find a faculty that was supportive of my efforts to address the problem. This book began as my doctoral dissertation in the Department of Philosophy at Georgetown University. I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my mentor, Robert Veatch, Ph. D. Our conversations during my Georgetown years led me in new and often fascinating directions. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Kenneth Schaffner, M. D. , Ph. D.

The germs of the ideas in this book became implanted in me during my experience as a resident in clinical pathology at Boston University Medical Center. At the time, I had inklings that the test results churned out by our laboratories were more than scientific facts. As a philosophically unsophisticated young physician, however, I had no language or framework to analyze what I saw as a deep philosophical problem, a problem largely unrecognized by most physicians. The test results provided by our laboratories were accurate and of great practical importance for patient care. However, most of the physicians who relied on our test results to diagnose and treat their patients either did not have the time or interest to consider the philosophical issues inherent in diagnosis, or, like me, had inadequate means to further analyze them. It was more than ten years later that I began doctoral studies in philosophy, and I was fortunate to find a faculty that was supportive ofmy efforts to address the problem. This book began as my doctoral dissertation in the Department of Philosophy at Georgetown University. I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my mentor, Robert Veatch, Ph. D. Our conversations during my Georgetown years led me in new and often fascinating directions. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Kenneth Schaffner, M. D. , Ph. D.

In Jesuit Postmodern, Francis X. Clooney has gathered nine American Jesuit scholars teaching at universities to reflect on their scholarly work, why they engage in it, and how the work they do coheres with their self-understanding as Jesuits. In accounts that weave together scholarly lives and personal stories, the contributors to this volume explore the irreducible diversity of their experiences and criticize the dominant modern synthesis that shaped Jesuit institutions of higher education from the 1960s to the 1990s. While the contrapuntal display of voices enunciated in this collection will unsettle the conventional and still dominant ways of talking about Jesuits, scholarship, and religious intellectual inquiry, Jesuit Postmodern does not end the conversation, but pushes scholars to talk more critically and imaginatively.

In Jesuit Postmodern, Francis X. Clooney has gathered nine American Jesuit scholars teaching at universities to reflect on their scholarly work, why they engage in it, and how the work they do coheres with their self-understanding as Jesuits. In accounts that weave together scholarly lives and personal stories, the contributors to this volume explore the irreducible diversity of their experiences and criticize the dominant modern synthesis that shaped Jesuit institutions of higher education from the 1960s to the 1990s. While the contrapuntal display of voices enunciated in this collection will unsettle the conventional and still dominant ways of talking about Jesuits, scholarship, and religious intellectual inquiry, Jesuit Postmodern does not end the conversation, but pushes scholars to talk more critically and imaginatively.